Slashdot Mirror
Bungie Explains Halo 3's Resolution
For some folks artisitic merit or financial success of Halo 3 isn't what's really important: it's about how many pixels are on the screen. After there were some complaints about the 'truth' of the game's HD nature Bungie posted a missive on their site clarifying the output process for Halo 3's visuals. "Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers - both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see - lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible - so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image. This ability to display a full range of HDR ... gives our scenes ... a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels."
Is it a fun game, or not? Debate that question if you must, but skip the minor technical details. It reminds me of the original Xbox's CPU -- some people swore it was a Celeron, some said a P3. I say what ends up being played on the screen is all that really matters.
I was expecting an article about how the game ends, and was prepared to make an epic post about a bunch of dots...
The article stole my joke!
I haven't had a chance to play Halo 3 yet, so I can't say anything about the game as a whole, but I'm glad to see they're more concerned with a steady frame-rate than killer visuals. I'd rather play a game at 320x240 with acceptable FPS (which I did back in the days of the original Unreal when I didn't have an accelerator) than play at 1024x768 at 20. Anything under 30 FPS irritates me to no end.
Those who care about this can wait for the PC version which I'm sure will allow you to pump the resolution to 1600x1200 (or possibly more by editing the .ini files) and zip along in glorious DirectX 10 goodness with their $500 video cards. Of course, by the time it comes out for the PC it will look dated (like Halo 2) and the people with the high-end rigs will be playing something else.
But if you really want it, it's coming.
All the complaints about Halo 3's resolution reminds me of all the "pixel peeping" that goes on when it comes to digital cameras. Everyone gets hung up on tech specs to the point that they stop looking at the image in question.
Halo 3 looks nice, and plays great. That's all that matters to me. I'm certainly willing to forgo some extra pixels in favor of a smoother experience.
I think it happened right around the time that HDTV became available, but at some point resolution--previously a technical term--somehow became a buzzword related to quality. It's gotten to the point where I can't stand hearing people talk about 640p or 1080i or whatever, because it just comes off as marketing spew and e-penis-waving.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with what they did, but I wouldn't be saying "extra". They are sacrificing pixels for FPS, not excluding "extra" pixels. I didn't know that 640p was standard and 720p was "extra".
Gears of War and BioShock are both displayed at a native 1920 x 1080 in progressive scan on my cousin's 360 Elite. The lighting in both games is amazing, as are the visuals, and the gameplay.
The real problem is Halo's graphics engine, which has been too demanding of the graphics card/processor since Halo 1. They're not going to admit that their graphics engine is slow or that the 360's graphics card can't crunch through double-bufferred 1080p using an engine that is maintained at Microsoft.
It goes to show that third-party developers have a better handle on getting the most out of the 360's PC hardware than Microsoft.
We all know it's nit-picky to count pixels, but I am glad that someone called them on this. this 'NextGen' of consoles was supposed to be the HD-era of console gaming and here we are getting our corners cut secretly!
:)
I remember Peter Moore saying that this generation will also eliminate the jaggies. the anti-aliasing is better in these new consoles but not enough to eliminate aliasing. The marketers can spout lies upon lies before release because no one ever calls them on it later, so I say GOOD JOB and KEEP IT UP!
so they cut corners to get a good frame rate. good grief! if this Gen of consoles were really the HD-era, then every game should be able to do 60fps at 1080p, period. I don't blame Bungie for this though, it's squarely MS's bucket of lies. Also, I am no Sony fanboy - for the PS3's price, it should have no jaggies and every game running 60fps at 1080p as well as my laundry. Guess we'll have to wait until next generation for the NextGen... until then, we're all suckers - albeit having fun with exceptional gameplay
certified elipsis abuser
What really matters is the quality of character and environment designs? Really? I guess you don't own a next generation system then; there's really no point to, ever, when there are so many good (and better) games out there for older systems. But I guess everyone who owns a PS3 or a X360 is just a graphics fanboy.
This issue is not overblown; we're talking about a flagship game on a next-generation HD platform, which isn't even HD. The game essentially runs at 640 and is upscaled because they couldn't figure out a way to get enough FPS to run it smooth at 720.
They have the gall to suggest that it's "practically impossible to discern a difference" (higher resolution makes zero difference?) and then insult people who notice. The "tinfoil hat wearers" are 100% correct in this case -- this is not an HD game. It may be loads of fun, and while it may run in HD, it's upscaled just like the fucking PS2 game on a PS3 without any of the smoothing extras.
I'll see your three buffers and raise you an aloe strip!
Actually, you're STILL wrong. If a game chooses to render at native 1080p, it can render that. The fact that the first Xbox 360 game to support it wasn't released until February this year is not relevant. If your console has the October 2006 software update, it can natively output true 1080p. NOT upscaled. Note that only if your model was built after July 2007 do you get an HDMI port. Bastards.
In fact, what you'd find if you did read any information released around that time, is that the 360 will upscale anything rendered in less than 1080p to it, and will render 1080p content as is (i.e. no upscaling).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Didn't Microsoft DEMAND that all games must meet 720p to qualify as a 360 title?
Didn't they guarantee that they were ushering in the HD era?
I guess that didn't apply to their own internal titles.
Bioshock looks better all around, has far more detail, oh, and runs natively at 720p without any problems. Why can't Halo 3? I don't get it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
This is actually a rampant problem on the xbox 360. I used to own one, and one of the first things I noticed about the machine was that images which should be crisp on your display were actually blurry around the edges. This odd phenomenon occurs everywhere, from the 360 dashboard, to the game menus and fmv's, to the in game graphics themselves. It seemed likely to me that this was because the machine is rendering things at a low resolution, and they trying to upscale by 20-30% in both x and y directions, which causes distortions in the image because it isn't a sensible division, like 100%. Every single game i've played has this problem, except settlers of catarn. If you are reading this and you have a 360, go download the demo of this off live arcade and try it out. Notice how crisp and clean the visuals are? The game is rendered from the get go in your native resolution, nwhich results in a sharp image with no distortion. You also never see any stretching, because if you're using an unorthodox screen shape (I used my monitior, which is 5-4) it will use your exact resolution as the buffer size. This post it entitled 'fuck upscaling,' because the fuzzy blur you get from every game the machine plays gives me a headache after about 2 hours play. If they want to reduce the resolution then fine, but just output whatever you render, don't upscale. I had to sell my 360, and one of the reasons was because of badly defined visuals. It should be the first thing people consider after high frame rate, in my opinion.
"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984